Revoke US Citizenship from Americans Who Join ISIS

A bus en route from Sofia to Istanbul goes through passport control on the Turkish side of the border at Kapikule. PHOTO: DANIELLA ZALCMAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A bus en route from Sofia to Istanbul goes through passport control on the Turkish side of the border at Kapikule. PHOTO: DANIELLA ZALCMAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

CSP, by Fred Fleitz, Feb. 23, 2015:

The French and Australian governments have taken aggressive steps to protect its citizens from so-called home grown terrorists who travel to the Middle East to fight for ISIS.  It is time for the United States to implement similar measures.

Over the weekend, the French government for the first time seized the passports of six French citizens who allegedly were planning to travel to Syria to join ISIS and banned 40 more from leaving the country.

France’s top court ruled late last month that the government could strip French citizenship from naturalized French citizens convicted of terrorism charges.  This decision will allow the government to withdraw French citizenship and passports from dual nationality jihadists who immigrated to France from north Africa and the Middle East.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott plans to strip Australian citizenship from dual nationals who return to his country after fighting for ISIS.   The Australian government may also suspend or withdraw citizenship from natural-born Australians who fought for ISIS.  Canada and the UK have laws on the books to do this but reportedly have not used them yet.

An estimated 20,000 foreigners have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS.  3,400 of them are Europeans; about 100 are Americans.  The Wall Street Journal reported today that European ISIS recruits are beginning to take steps to evade stepped-up security measures to prevent them from travelling to the Middle East by traveling by road and pretending to take trips to visit relatives or go on holiday to hide their final destinations.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Steve King (R-IA) believe the United States must crack down on U.S citizens who join ISIS.  That’s why last month they proposed the Expatriate Terrorists Act.  If passed, this bill would revoke U.S. citizenship from anyone fighting for or supporting ISIS.  The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Joe Manchin (R-WV).

Democrats blocked an earlier version of this bill submitted by Cruz last fall because they claimed it was vague and would affect the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.  The White House did not take a public position on Cruz’s bill but is believed to oppose it.

Congressman Steve King explained the urgency for passing the Expatriate Terrorist Act when he said, “I believe these American terrorists have voluntarily renounced their citizenship upon taking an oath to a foreign terrorist organization.”

Senator Cruz, Congressman King and officials in France and Australia understand the seriousness of their citizens traveling to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS and returning home to commit acts of terror.  The Cruz/King bill would send a powerful message that America is prepared to do whatever it takes to defeat ISIS and Americans who join terrorists groups will pay a high price.

Cultural Suicide: Why Allowing Syrian War Refugees to Enter Western Countries is a Pandora’s Box to More Attacks

February 19, 2015 / /

In its infinite wisdom the Obama administration announced plans to dramatically increase the number of Syrian War refugees being accepted into the confines of our borders. As of this writing, the largest concentrations of resettled refugees are in California, Illinois and Texas. As one would guess, there some serious concerns with the very real (and likely) possibility of terrorists associated with the Islamic State (IS) entering our country under the “refugee” label. DoS claims that “only the small minority who are in the most dire need, including the very young, ailing and elderly, and people who have been persecuted by their government” will be resettled in our country. The problem with that is the “very young” tend to have parents and siblings who tend to follow them – but the Obama administration conveniently leaves out those inconvenient details. DoS also makes the claim that they’re actually going to “screen” applicants, but how well they screened the Boston Bombers (the Russians had warned us about those two) doesn’t inspire much confidence from our staff. Its also worth noting that the Obama administration has been saying that the screening process is more “rigorous” since 2009 – so when was the Boston Bombing again?

U.S. to accept Syrian refugees in greater numbers after slow start

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-refugees-20141211-story.html

US Officials Admit Concern Over Syrian Refugee Effort

http://abcnews.go.com/International/officials-fear-syrian-refugees-pose-threat-us/story?id=28930114

waheeb

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you…
Source: The Daily Telegraph (UK)

Remember, this is the same Obama administration via DHS that lost track of over 6,000 foreigners last year who overstayed their visas. As much as the Obama administration would like for you to believe, the ugly truth is the US government doesn’t have any real checks and balances nor does it have the political will to properly enforce the current immigration laws on the books. People applying for visas of any kind, refugee status/political asylum from countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Iraq – places where most of the populations despise us – red-flags should immediately be raised that should result in the application being promptly rejected. Unfortunately, people working in immigration and customs tend to simply push them along no questions asked – and that’s not even getting into the Pandora’s Box that allowing more Syrian refugees into our country would open.

DHS Loses 6,000

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=1580

If you want to get a glimpse into America’s future all one needs to do is to look at Europe. As we discussed in our recent piece titled “The Jews: Europe’s Canary in the Mine on the Growing Jihadist Threat,” we laid out how years of political correctness and failed social experimentation has led to serious problems bubbling to the surface in Europe. Specifically, we showed how the EU members’ refusal to confront the jihadist threat has led to an increase in terror attacks with Denmark used as a case-study. Countries like Denmark, France, Germany, Belgium and the UK have been extremely generous in taking in Syrian War refugees and immigrants from other nations with large jihadist populations. Common sense says that Gulf nations refusing to take in refugees should be a huge red-flag to the US and its European counterparts. Unfortunately it isn’t. We just had a series of attacks in France from DEC 14 – JAN 15 and two more shootings in Denmark over the weekend, yet Europe continues to live with the delusional concept of “multiculturalism.”

A prime example of this is the threat that people just now realized exists from Libya on the other side of the Mediterranean. IS clearly sees the many vulnerabilities inside Europe in terms of how easy it is to gain access to member nations, as demonstrated by calls from the terror organization to infiltrate the continent posing as migrants. Indeed, Libya is a “gateway” to Europe but so are Turkey and Cyprus. Due to EU members being so inviting, the US also runs the risk of failing to notice individuals of Middle Eastern/North African origins who obtained dual-citizenship who attempt to enter our country on a European passport. If these people wanted to truly integrate they wouldn’t be trying to push the issue with “Sharia Enforcement Zones” and forcing everybody to bend over to their cultural demands. The truth is most of the people coming from the above-mentioned countries have no desire to integrate into western society despite being all too happy to receive those welfare checks (like a certain Anjem Choudray). Europe is dying, only the European people and the naive politicians they elected to office don’t yet realize it. If America isn’t careful, our fate will be similar to their’s – and it will happen much sooner than you think. It may sound cold, but allowing these people into our country isn’t worth the risk…

The Jews: Europe’s Canary in the Mine on the Growing Jihadist Threat

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=4939

Islamic State ‘planning to use Libya as gateway to Europe’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11418966/Islamic-State-planning-to-use-Libya-as-gateway-to-Europe.html

Attack in Paris, France Kills 12

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=4336

Islamic State: The French Connection

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=3875

ISIS Attack Plot Thwarted in Belgium – A Sign of Things to Come?

http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=1890

Obama ISIS Map

The world burns while President Obama exhibits Nero-like characteristics – just substitute the golf clubs for a fiddle.
Source: The ISIS Study Group

***

Also see Refugee Resettlement Watch archives on Syrian Refugees:

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/?s=syrian+refugees

French PM: West Must Fight Muslim Brotherhood Ideology

Muslims praying in the middle of a public street in France.

Muslims praying in the middle of a public street in France.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Feb. 16, 2015:

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has stated that the West must “fight the discourse of the Muslim Brotherhood in our country” and scrutinize foreign funding of mosques, a sharp break from U.S. policy that views the Brotherhood as a moderate competitor to Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS).

Prime Minister Valls said the country needs to enact policies to combat the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists, making the point that Islamist terrorism is a product of radical preaching. He announced that the Interior Minister will lead a study on the foreign financing of mosques in France and the training of French imams.

“We seek to establish a model of Islam that is fully integrated, fully compatible with the values of the Republic,” Valls said.

France has a serious problem with growing Islamism that is hostile to nationalism, secular-democracy and integration. A 2011 intelligence report warned that “self-appointed” imams in Muslim-majority areas, specifically the city of Marseille, were spreading Islamism. It said only a “relatively low” percentage of the 250,000 Muslims in that city support violent jihad, but “Islamic fundamentalism has progressed to the point where it has won over the majority of the Muslim population.”

France recognizes that the problem is not just the act of terrorism, but the Islamist ideology that drives violence and is also detrimental to the West in many non-violent ways. The Prime Minister said after the attacks in Paris that the country is at war with radical Islam; a stark difference from the vague terminology of “violent extremism” used by the U.S.

Valls’ use of “radical Islam” wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It signaled a major shift in strategy and was repeated by the French ambassador to America afterwards.

“We are at war with radical Islam. It means that right now… Islam is breeding radicalism which is quite dangerous for everybody. So I think in the coming weeks or the coming months, we have to define the global strategy. Part of the strategy is to work with the Muslim countries,” the ambassador said.

The Prime Minister even said that Europe needs to recognize that Islamists slander opponents as “Islamophobes” to stop scrutiny of their ideology and leaders.

“I refuse to use this term ‘Islamophobia,’ because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people,” he says.

The Prime Minister’s bold statements come as Egypt has agreed to become the first country to buy French Rafale fighter jets. The Egyptian government will sign a $5.93 billion contract to acquire 24 aircraft.

The coinciding of Prime Minister Valls’ statement with the deal suggests that France wants to wage an ideological war against Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood and sees Egypt as a major ally in that campaign. President El-Sisi banned the Muslim Brotherhood and forcefully called for a reformation of Islamic interpretations that denounce any violence.

French President Hollande said that the deal was made because his country desires for Egypt to act as a stabilizing regional power.

“I believe that, given the current context, it’s very important that Egypt is able to act to uphold stability and to be in security, not only stability on its own territory, but stability in the region,” he said.

The word usage is important. Hollande means that the sale is not just an endorsement of Egypt’s fight against the ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula, but of Egypt leadership role in the Middle East. A central post of that role is crushing the Muslim Brotherhood and undermining Islamism, including airstrikes on Islamist militias in Libya.

The deal is seen as a subtle rebuke of the U.S. over its criticism of Egypt’s handling of the Brotherhood. The U.S. says it is “not concerned” about the deal, but observers recognize that Egypt is reducing its reliance on the U.S. for arms. Egypt immediately reacted to U.S. criticism by embracing Russia and signing a major arms deal, as well as a recent agreement for Russia to build Egypt’s first nuclear reactor.

The French government’s stance is also important because the President and Prime Minister are from the Socialist Party, heralding a political consensus between the right-wing and left-wing parties that Islamism is the threat and a strategy against that ideology and its proponents including the Muslim Brotherhood is necessary.

Current French President Hollande defeated his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy of the Union for a Popular Movement party, but they are both now on the same page in regards to this issue.

This is especially significant because Hollande emphasized his friendliness with the French Muslim community during the campaign. Soeren Kern wrote that Hollande’s victory was “the first time that Muslims have determined the outcome of a presidential election in a major Western European country; it is a preview of things to come.”

Sarkozy was warning about the lack of assimilation for years prior to the Paris attacks. He said policy adjustments were needed to integrate immigrants and to prevent “a society where communities coexist side by side.”

“Our Muslim compatriots should be able to live and practice their religion like anyone else…but it can only be a French Islam and not just an Islam in France,” Sarkozy said in 2011.

France and Egypt get it. They understand that Islamism is the problem due to the former’s experiencing of the Paris attacks by the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and the latter’s experience of Muslim Brotherhood governance. If the U.S. still doesn’t get it after 9/11, the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston bombings and countless other acts of Islamist violence, then what will it take?

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

The Sound of Silence

charlie hebdo cartoonsby Mark Steyn
Steyn on Britain
February 9, 2015

Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University is nobody’s idea of a right-winger. He voted for Obama, and supports almost all of his policy goals (if not his extra-constitutional methods). But, unlike most of the left, he’s still prepared to defend free speech against what he calls Charlie’s False Friends:

For civil libertarians, it is clear that when leaders insist that they “Stand with Charlie” it does not mean actually standing with free speech. To the contrary, the greatest threat facing free speech today is found in Western governments, which have increasingly criminalized and prosecuted speech, particularly anti-religious speech. Once the defining right of Western Civilization, free speech is dying in the West and few world leaders truly mourn its passing.

Around the world, speech is under attack under an array of hate speech and anti-discrimination laws… The result is a growing, if not insatiable, appetite for speech regulation that only increases after violent responses to controversial publications.

The most recent tragedy in France follows an all too familiar pattern from publication to prosecution. Consider what happened in 2005 with the publication of the Danish cartoons and the global riots leading to the murder of non-Muslims and burning of churches and homes. The West rallied around the right of free speech, but then quietly ramped up prosecutions of speech. It happened again in 2012 when a low-budget trailer of a low-grade movie was put on YouTube. The “Innocence of Muslims” trailer was deemed insulting to Mohammad and Islam and led to another global spasm of murder and arson by irate Muslims. Again, Western leaders professed support for free speech while cracking down further on anti-religious speech. Even in the United States, President Obama insisted that the filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had every right to make the film. However, the next image that the world saw after that speech was filmmaker being thrown into a police car in handcuffs for technical violations of a probation on unrelated charges…

Professor Turley then lists a round-up of state assaults on freedom of expression from around the so-called free world, including my own difficulties in Canada. I doubt Turley agrees with a single one of these hatespeechers (including me) on the merits, but he recognizes that the point of free speech is for the speech you hate. If you don’t believe in free speech for those you hate, you don’t believe in free speech at all. And then he adds:

These cases represent more than a lack of support for free speech. They represent a comprehensive assault on free speech. Indeed, one of the world leaders proudly proclaiming support for free speech in Paris has banned the publication of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan called the use of the prophet’s image on the magazine an act of “sedition and provocation.”

Well, Turkey is hardly anyone’s idea of a crucible of liberty. But what are we to make of England, mother of the free? The other day Wiltshire Police went to a local newsagent and demanded that, in the interests of “community cohesion”, he hand over the names of every customer who bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo:

Mrs Keat, a self-confessed news junkie, ordered the magazine from a local newsagent in Corsham, Wiltshire, a week after the 7 January attacks in Paris. Two days after she bought her magazine, she learned that an officer had been back to ask for the names of the buyers.

The names and addresses of the buyers were added to an intelligence note and fed into a police crime and intelligence system, police confirmed. The force deleted the note after details of the visit came to light in a letter that Mrs Keat wrote to The Guardian and warned of the potential ramifications after seeing an advert for Je Suis Charlie badges…

What really is the difference between Charlie Hebdo‘s killers and Wiltshire Police? The anti-Charlie crowd made it clear years ago that they knew where the offending cartoonists were and one day they would get them. The Wiltshire Police are not so subtly telling Charlie‘s English readers that they know where you are – just in case one day they need to get you:

“Wiltshire Police would like to apologise to the members of public who may be affected by this. Information relating to this specific incident has been permanently and securely disposed of,” it said… “Wiltshire Police are confident that the police officer’s intention was purely around enhancing public safety and ensuring that the newsagent was advised appropriately.”

You can get away with anything when you smother it in blather about “enhancing” public safety and “advising appropriately”. But the fact remains that, a few days after the hideous opportunist Cameron was marching under the #JeSuisCharlie banner in Paris, his coppers were ordering newsagents to cough up the names of anyone who bought the magazine. This is Mother England in 2015: You can still read samizdat literature, but your name will be entered in a state database.

Equally disturbing was a recent English court judgment re the Home Office ban denying Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller entry into the United Kingdom. Their Lordships’ appalling decision essentially extends the heckler’s veto to Her Britannic Majesty’s immigration policy:

A British Court of Appeal handed down its judgment dismissing our appeal challenging our ban from entering the United Kingdom. The key element of its decision is its emphasis on the fact that “this was a public order case where the police had advised that significant public disorder and serious violence might ensue from the proposed visit.” In writing that judgment, Lord Justice Tomlinson (with whom Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Floyd agree) has only made it clear that the British government has decided to set aside established law and the freedom of speech in order to appease violent Muslims.

No serious person thinks Spencer and Geller are any threat to “public order”. They speak without incident all over not only the United States but also the Dominion of Canada, and without unduly stressing the Queen’s Peace. So, if they can’t speak without incident in the United Kingdom, that is a reflection not on them but on Britain. What Lord Justice Tomlinson means by the prospect of “serious violence” is that, if you’re booked to give a speech in Oxford and some Islamic grievance-mongers threaten to go bananas over it, your speech has to be forbidden in deference to the crazies. The decision thus incentivizes those who threaten violence. As Laura Rosen Cohen likes to say, “security concerns” are the new “shut up”.

And, if you think David Cameron’s ministry has grown far too comfortable with using state power to restrain the opinions of a free party, wait till the other fellows take over:

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, will on Monday unveil a strategy to tackle the UK’s soaring rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and abuse of people with disabilities. The package includes making homophobic and disability hate crimes an aggravated criminal offence, ensuring that police treat such offences in the same way as racist hate crimes.

Cooper will outline changes to the criminal records framework whereby such offences will be clearly marked on the criminal records of perpetrators. Currently, records checks do not highlight homophobia, disability or transgender identity as a motivating factor in a conviction, and do not automatically appear in police data used for vetting applicants in sensitive vocations, such as those working with vulnerable people, including the disabled.

Labour’s move comes as a new breakdown of police figures reveals an escalation in hate crimes since 2012, with a steep rise in abuse reported by the transgender community alongside the well-documented rises in antisemitism and Islamophobia.

As that grab-bag suggests, right now the leftie sexual identity groups are happy to make common cause with the Islamocrazies because they’re both about shutting people up. For example, the feminist comedienne Kate Smurthwaite is already in Britain so, unlike Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, she can’t be turned back at Heathrow. But she apparently holds insufficiently “respectful” attitudes to “sex workers”, so she had her speech at Goldsmiths College canceled because of – what else? – “security concerns“. The topic of her talk was, of course, free speech.

Professor Jonathan Turley says:

Western leaders have increasingly spoken out against the dangers of free speech. For politicians, free speech is an abstraction, the consequences of free speech tend to be more tangible in the form of riots and murders.

You don’t have to be a politician to think “free speech is an abstraction”. Robert Spencer might want to give speeches about Islam, and Mrs Keat might want to read Charlie Hebdo, but most people don’t want to give any speeches at all and are content to read Hello! or People or whatever’s filling the rack where Charlie Hebdo used to be. In some ways, it’s the easiest right to surrender, particularly to regimes that smother the expansion of state regulatory power in soothing twaddle about “enhancing public safety” to protect “vulnerable people”.

Speaking of “vulnerable people”, how about this headline from The Daily Mirror?

Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK

That’s according to Rotherham Labour MP Sarah Champion. Who knows if it’s true? On the one hand, Britain is so alert to “paedos” that, if some cheesy old Radio One disc-jockey is alleged to have grabbed the passing breast of a 15-year-old teenybopper on “Top Of The Pops” in 1973, he’ll be dragged through the courts and publicly ruined. But vast, systemic, industrial-scale 21st-century paedophilia by Muslim grooming gangs aided and abetted by law enforcement and local government will be ignored and hushed up – essentially in the interests of (what was that expression again?) “community cohesion”. It turns out free speech isn’t that “abstract”. When you so hedge in free expression with political correctness, you make it impossible even to raise certain subjects, and thereby facilitate real, non-abstract evil. The loss of free speech brings other losses, too.

Yet, looking at the ease with which governments of some of the oldest, freest societies on earth are shackling and restraining the right to speak, to read, to think, the obvious question to ask is what rights will they go after next? After all, if 300 years of free speech can be rolled back in the interest of “enhancing public safety”, why not property rights, due process, freedom of association, freedom of religion or even (gasp!) sexual liberty? Why think that statist restraints on core liberties will confine themselves to just one right?

~Mark’s book on this subject, Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West, has never been more timely. Personally autographed copies are exclusively available from the SteynOnline bookstore, and, for instant gratification, non-autographed eBook editions are available from Amazon.com and other outlets.

‘What are you waiting for?’: Slick new ISIS campaign puts new face on homegrown terror

The French-speaking ISIS fighters show their faces, an indication that they have no intention of coming back to France. (Screengrab courtesy of TRAC)

The French-speaking ISIS fighters show their faces, an indication that they have no intention of coming back to France. (Screengrab courtesy of TRAC)

Fox News, By Malia Zimmerman, February 09, 2015:

Buoyed by the Islamist terror attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, ISIS has continued a slick campaign with the twisted theme, “What are you waiting for?” and featuring fresh-faced jihadists urging radicals in French-speaking countries to stay put and kill innocents.

In one video released online last week, titled, “Blow Up France 2,” a masked jihadist bearing an assault weapon exhorts Muslims to continue terror attacks in that country.

“Don’t give up and particularly don’t lower your weapons, don’t surrender — kill. Today, it’s our darwa — kill them. You now have more than 4 million targets,” the jihadist said in French.

Just hours after the video release, Moussa Coulibaly, 30, allegedly stabbed three French soldiers on patrol near a Jewish community center in Nice. The police officers, who were on anti-terror patrol, were not seriously hurt. Coulibaly, 31, who shares the surname of Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed four people at a Jewish supermarket in Paris on Jan. 9 in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, was nabbed near the scene.

“These video releases mark the significant push that Islamic State is having toward Francophone recruitment,” Veryan Khan, of the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), a Florida-based global research firm specializing in political violence and terrorism. “If it also results in transnational attacks outside the Sham, then that is just gravy on top of the plate for them.”

Some of the propaganda also bears English subtitles, indicating they aim to recruit Westerners. Islamic State has so far put out four of the French-language videos asking the question “What are you waiting for?” beginning in November. The initial video called on foreign fighters to attack their host country if they cannot join Islamic State in the caliphate.

“ISIS did not want this exclusively for a French audience,” said Ryan Mauro, security analyst for the Clarion Project, an educational group focused on Islamist extremism. “The group wanted to send a message to Americans, as well.”

Recent videos feature a series of man-on-the-street style interviews asking jihadists their opinions on everything from the murder of Jordanian air force pilot Moath al-Kaseasbeh, who was burned alive in January by ISIS leaders while trapped in a cage, to the beheading of Japanese journalist Kenji Goto.

One of the seven jihadists featured in the most recent video is likely Hayat Boumeddiene, the 26-year-old widow of Amedy Coulibaly, according to French authorities. French police killed Coulibaly, 32, after he murdered four hostages in the Paris supermarket Hyper Cacher. Boumeddiene, last seen Jan. 12 in a surveillance video at the Istanbul Airport, is now French law enforcement’s “most wanted” woman and is believed to have joined ISIS in Syria or Iraq.

The supermarket siege came two days after 12 people were murdered in an attack on Charlie Hebdo, the news outlet known for its controversial series of cartoons mocking followers of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. Although that attack was linked to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Amedy Coulibaly is believed to have been a follower of Islamic State.

“Ever since the Charlie Hebdo attacks ‘avenged’ the prophet, there has been a growing trend to justify terrorist acts, such as this murder, by claiming it was an act of vengeance,” Khan said. “Just this week in Sinai, Egypt, ISIS released a video titled, ‘We Swear We Will Revenge.’”

Khan believes the videos, along with other recruitment efforts, are having an impact.

“It’s very possible that the Paris attacks were influenced by this video, which was extremely popular with the Twitter crowd,” Khan said.

Islamic State is making videos targeting the French because they are having success there, said Mauro.

“In the aftermath of the Paris attacks and the latest attack on French soldiers, ISIS knows that will generate attention,” he said.

In the videos, the French-speaking fighters boldly show their faces in some of the videos, indicating they have no intention of returning to France, Khan said.

“The theme of most of their interviews is that France is no place for a Muslim, as they cannot truly actualize their faith in that country,” Khan said.

France is not a country where citizenship, culture or birth can make you French, Khan said, as national identity is in a number of factors not attainable by outsiders.

“Add to this the measures France has taken to protect itself against the insider threat it faces, including banning the niqab (veil or mask), plus the usual complaints that Western religious freedom actually oppresses Muslims by exposing them to what they find morally reprehensible, and there you get the reason for their repeated, triumphal rejection of France,” Khan said.

The videos also call on jihadists to rise up in Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and the West. Khan believes the videos and other Islamic State tactics have even inspired attacks on law enforcement in France and Canada.

Islamic State is undoubtedly the terrorist group that has been most successful in their online media strategies, Mauro said.

“This successful strategy has enabled ISIS to win over the next generation of jihadists,” Mauro said. “A young radical can feel as if he or she is part of an actual community in the jihadist online world and, unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS can actually claim to be seizing ground and making progress. These videos help ISIS supporters feel as if they are part of an exciting turning point in Islamic history.”

French Police Terror Attacker Yesterday Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Attack: The three soldiers were patrolling a Jewish community centre in Nice, on the French Riviera when a man named as Moussa Coulibaly, 30, attacked them with a knife, injuring two in the face and one in the arm

Attack: The three soldiers were patrolling a Jewish community centre in Nice, on the French Riviera when a man named as Moussa Coulibaly, 30, attacked them with a knife, injuring two in the face and one in the arm

PJ Media, By Patrick Poole On February 3, 2015:

A man deported from Turkey back to France less than a week ago under suspicion he was trying to join ISIS attacked three police officers standing guard outside a Jewish center in Nice yesterday, in what is yet another example of what I have termed “known wolf” syndrome.

I coined that term here at PJ Media back in October following two separate terror attacks in Canada within a week of each other by two separate individuals who were already known to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I noted here that this was also the case with the Sydney hostage taker, Sheikh Haron, in December. Haron had already been convicted of harassing the widows of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and was out on bail in two other separate cases. This was true yet again with the two Kouachi brothers responsible for the massacre at the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo last month, one of whom had already been in jail on terrorism charges.

Now it seems that Moussa Coulibaly, who stabbed three police officers yesterday in Nice, was yet another “known wolf.”

The Daily Mail reports:

The man who stabbed three soldiers outside a Jewish community centre in Nice today, was apprehended in Turkey last week while en-route to join ISIS, authorities believe.

Moussa Coulibaly, 30, was arrested at Istanbul airport and deported back to France after border control became suspicious, a security source has said…

Coulibaly was detained after the attack, near the Galeries Lafayette department store, and a second man has since been arrested by police.

The attack took place in central Nice around 2pm this afternoon, after Coulibaly had been fined for travelling on the tram without a ticket.

He ‘paid the fine without flinching and then rushed at the soldiers,’ The Local reports.

Coulibaly then pulled an eight-inch blade out of a bag and set upon one of the soldiers, injuring him in the chin, police said.

Coulibaly then swiped at two other soldiers – injuring one in the cheek, and the other in the forearm – before being apprehended by riot police stationed near the building.

He has a record of theft and violence, but the motive for the attack is not yet clear, an anonymous police official said.

The attack took place outside a Jewish community centre in Nice, home to an Israeli association and a Jewish radio station.

Agence France Presse adds:

Police detained Moussa Coulibaly and a suspected accomplice on Tuesday after the attack on the soldiers in front of a Jewish community center in Nice.

Border police had flagged Coulibaly to their Turkish counterparts on Jan. 28, who promptly returned him home, the French security official said on condition of anonymity because she wasn’t authorized to speak on the record.

French authorities, however, were unable to turn up enough evidence against Coulibaly to open a legal case against him.

As I’ve been regularly observing here at PJ Media since October, the recent international terror attacks have universally been committed by subjects already known to law enforcement and intelligence. In the case of the Charlie Hebdo attackers in France, they were on the no-fly list of both the U.S. and the UK.

How many more people will need to die before Western authorities begin to take sufficient action against those already known to them who intend to commit acts of terror? Sadly, we’re about to find out.

***

Published on Feb 3, 2015 by AlohaSnackbar01

Also see:

Mark Steyn Pushes Back on the Media’s Denial of ‘No-Go Zones

12863279085_6467259d66_k-640x480Breitbart, by JOHN HAYWARD, Jan. 30, 2015

When the mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox News for “slandering” her city by reporting on Muslim-dominated “no-go zones,” liberal media outlets forgot their own years of reporting on those zones to bash their hated right-leaning cable news adversary.

Among the longtime observers who pushed back against no-go zone denialism is author Mark Steyn, who has mentioned these hostile, unassimilated communities in his columns and books for years.

Steyn appeared on Canadian host Ezra Levant’s program to discuss no-go zones and the Islamization of Europe on Thursday:

 

Steyn makes a crucial point about how Islamization thwarts the healthy assimilation process of immigrant communities, leaving them permanently alienated from host cultures they perceive as weak and spiritually unsatisfying.  The resulting “hole in the heart,” as Steyn describes it, is a void radical Islam eagerly rushes forward to fill.  The degree of alienation present in these no-go zones is horrifying.  We can debate what percentage of a community’s population is accurately represented by the angry and dispossessed people who make outsiders reluctant to travel into a hostile district, but the practical result, no matter how informally it might be understood, cannot be erased with happy thoughts or media spin.

In his decade-old book America AloneSteyn related an incident that illustrated the informal, but very real, understanding that non-Muslims are not welcome in certain Muslim-dominated districts:

When Martine Aubry, the Mayor of Lille, daughter of former Prime Minister and EU bigwig Jacques Delors and likely Presidential candidate in the post-Chirac era, held a meeting with an imam in Roubaix, he demanded that it take place on the edge of the neighborhood in recognition that his turf was Muslim territory which she was bound not to enter. Mme Aubry conceded the point, as more and more politicians will in the years ahead.

Steyn quoted another passage from America Alone with a certain no-go flavor in a blog post on the day the Charlie Hebdo killers were brought down by French police:

Four years after 9/11, it turned out there really is an explosive “Arab street,” but it’s in Clichy-sous-Bois. Since the beginning of this century, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They’re losing that battle…

If Chirac, de Villepin and co aren’t exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren’t doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They’re seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the ‘burbs gets you more “respect”, they’ll burn ‘em again, and again. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. And why should they be? On present demographic trends, it will be for ethnic Europeans to assimilate with them.

The tendency of Western authorities to pretend Islamist tendencies are an insignificant ripple in the deep pool of peaceful Islamic thought was indicted by Steyn in that January 10 blog post: “The louder the perpetrators yell ‘Allahu Akbar’ and rejoice that the Prophet has been avenged, the louder M Hollande and David Cameron and Barack Obama and John Kerry and the other A-list infidels insist there’s no Islam to see here. M le Président seems to believe he can champion France’s commitment to freedom of expression by conscripting the entire nation in his monstrous lie.”  The subsequent push by French politicians and American editorial writers to pretend the banlieues don’t exist fits neatly into that thesis.

The subject of no-go zones came up last week, during one of Steyn’s regular appearances on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show:

I’ve walked around the East End. I’ve walked around, for example, past what used to be a famous gay pub on, just off the Commercial Road that is no longer there, where what they call the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets is, now holds sway. A couple of years ago on Holocaust Memorial Day, a group of Jews were touring the old Jewish West End, where fellows like Lionel Bart, the composer of Oliver, came from. And they were greeted by youths of a certain persuasion who pelted them with stones, and a Canadian tourist and an American tourist wound up being taken to the hospital. That’s Jews stoned on Holocaust Memorial Day in the East End of London.

Likewise, there are no-go zones in parts of Birmingham in the Midlands, where in nothing flat, a city that was 0% Muslim 50 years ago now is 22% Muslim. They’re the demographic energy in the city. A senior British police officer was talking about this. He was saying, he wasn’t calling them no-go zones. He was putting it in a sort of positive way, that these communities prefer to police themselves, as it were. And that’s why we just leave them to get on with it. And one consequence of that is that nobody who isn’t a member of those “communities” likes to go there. But those no-go zones are not as advanced as they are in France, but they are real and they are growing in British cities.

They’re true in Sweden. I walked through Rosengard in Sweden. And I was warned by the two lovely, leggy Swedish blondes I was having a cup of coffee with twenty minutes earlier not to go there at dusk. And you go there at dusk, and it’s all fiercely bearded young men and covered women who came from Muslim countries where they didn’t have to be covered, but they emigrate to Sweden, and suddenly, not to get into any trouble from those bearded, young men, they’re forced to go covered. Those no-go zones are real in almost every country in Western Europe now.

But we’re supposed to believe they’re not real, because they don’t have big “KEEP OUT OR DIE, INFIDEL!” billboards denoting their perimeter, and they’re not labeled “Muslim No-Go Zone #23″ on the official maps of major European cities. The whole debate turned into one of multi-culturalism’s frequent “I See Five Lights” tests, where we’re supposed to signal our submission to intellectual torture by formally disavowing the evidence of our lying eyes.  It’s not likely to prove an effective antidote against an aggressive ideology whose appeal flows from conquering weaker cultures.  Conquerors do not regard the willfully blind as difficult opponents.

One other location that should be highlighted on any map of no-go zones is Rotherham, in South Yorkshire, England. Rotherham was more precisely a didn’t-go zone. Over 1,400 girls, as young as 11 years of age, were sexually abused in Rotherham over the course of 16 years by a “grooming gang” of mostly Pakistani Muslim men. (In fact, the UK Daily Mail reports that, as more victims keep coming forward, Labour MP Sarah Champion recently said she thinks the final total will be well over 2,000.)  The girls were threatened with harm, and harm to their families, if they spoke out… but some of them did contact the authorities, only to be roundly ignored due to politically-correct blindness.  The fear of being called out as racist or bigoted paralyzed local authorities.

Even after a bombshell report made the dimensions of the Rotherham horror clear – including gang rape, human trafficking, and such disciplinary measures as dousing a young girl with gasoline and threatening to strike a match unless she kept quiet – resignations and reprimands came at an agonizingly slow pace.  In fact, the Daily Mail quotes one of the victims saying in December that she thinks the grooming gangs are still in business, perhaps worse than ever, but slightly more circumspect about hiding their activities from marginally less blind authorities.  “I’m still seeing my abusers driving young girls in their car. They’re untouchable,” she complained, adding that six months after the scandal broke, “we’ve had no arrests, we’ve had no charges, evidence is still being lost.”

The refusal to assimilate ultimately requires a certain degree of indulgence from the host society.  Insularity is difficult to enforce against a confident surrounding culture.  The legal principles and economic policies of a nation have a great deal to do with how directionless and alienated young people from all racial and cultural backgrounds feel.  There are no-go zones and won’t-go splotches of politically correct blindness on the map because they are tolerated, and that won’t change if politicians and the media insist on ignoring them.

What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t

pic_giant_012415_SM_Muslims-France

We need a great deal more honesty about the religion, as the “no-go zone” debate reveals.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 24, 2015

Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.

In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”

The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere

is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.

It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).

Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.

Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”

Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”

Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.

That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact thatsharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.

Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.

In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.

It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.

So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.

Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academicanalyses but by governments that must deal with them.

Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles­ — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.

Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.

Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. Sheikh Qaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has beencrystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on“Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep TayyipErdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”

At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,

holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.

That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Paris Mayor To Sue Fox News For No-Go Zone Report

 

Truth Revolt, by Jeff Dunetz, Jan. 20, 2015:

Anne Hidalgo, the Mayor of Paris, France claims “the image of Paris has been prejudiced and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced” and intends to sue Fox News for its a discussion of “no-go zones” in British and Paris neighborhoods, for which the network has apologized four times.

On her January 10 program, Judge Jeanine Pirro had Steve Emerson on her show to speak about these zones. Emerson said:

They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens. And they’re places where the governments, like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany — they don’t exercise any sovereignty so you basically have zones where Sharia courts are set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where police don’t go in.” Though Emerson claimed that this phenomenon plagued Europe very broadly, he zeroed in on Birmingham, England: “There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in,” he said.

Emerson’s mistake was going too broad. If he said parts of Birmingham rather than the entire city he would have made a defensible argument. Ever since Emerson made the claim, the network has faced pressure to retract, which it has.

On Tuesday afternoon, CNN broke into Ashleigh Banfield’s program to announce the lawsuit.

Banfield: Our breaking news comes to us out of Paris. The mayor of that city has just told our CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that she is planning to take legal action against a TV network, Fox News. And it’s all because of comments that were made about so-called Muslim no-go zones in Paris. Just for some background, last week, a terrorism analyst on the Fox News channel suggested that there were entire cities like Birmingham in England there were no-go zones, that people who were not Muslim either could not or would not go, including police. Well, that led to a series of apologies and references to mistakes being made. Fox news is apologizing, suggesting this was an error. But the reporting did continue to include entire neighborhoods in Paris. And that presumably is what has the Paris mayor so upset. Have a listen.

Hidalgo (via translator) : I’m insulted. And when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue. I think they’ll have to go to court in order to have these words removed. The image of Paris has been prejudiced and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced. And I think in the great discussion of truth, everyone is to play its role and we have to be realistic and put things as they are.

Amanpour: Can you clarify which exact network you’re going to take to court and sue?

Hidalgo: Fox News. That’s the name.

In related news, The Gateway Institute, run by former UN Ambassador John Bolton, published a report Tuesday morning which seemed to prove that no-go zones do exist in France. Additionally, a two-year old video has been found showing a CNN report describing the no-go zones in London.

European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 1: France

by Soeren Kern
January 20, 2015

A 120-page research paper entitled “No-Go Zones in the French Republic: Myth or Reality?” documented dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”

In October 2011, a 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la République” (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the French state and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law.

The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

The television presenter asks: “What if we went to the suburbs?” Obertone replies: “I do not recommend this. Not even we French dare go there anymore. But nobody talks about this in public, of course. Nor do those who claim, ‘long live multiculturalism,’ and ‘Paris is wonderful!’ dare enter the suburbs.”

The jihadist attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French magazine known for lampooning Islam, has cast a spotlight on so-called no-go zones in France and other European countries.

No-go zones are Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims due to a variety of factors, including the lawlessness and insecurity that pervades a great number of these areas. Host-country authorities have effectively lost control over many no-go zones and are often unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim youth.

Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism and pose a significant threat to Western security.

Europe’s no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations.

The problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist. Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue.

Consider Carol Matlack, an American writer for Bloomberg Businessweek, who recently penned a story — entitled “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities” — in which she claims that no-go zones are nothing more than an “urban legend” that is “demonstrably untrue.” She then goes on to ridicule those who disagree with her.

The American cable television channel Fox News has also issued at least four apologies for referring to Muslim no-go zones in Europe, after one commentator erroneously claimed that the entire city of Birmingham, England, was Muslim. Had he simply said that “parts” of Birmingham are Muslim, he would have been correct.

Despite such politically correct denials, Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.

What follows is the first in a multi-part series that will document the reality of Europe’s no-go zones. The series begins by focusing on France and provides a brief compilation of just a few of the literally thousands of references to French no-go zones from academic, police, media and government sources that can easily be found on the Internet by doing a simple search on Google.

Fabrice Balanche, a well-known French Islam scholar who teaches at the University of Lyon, recently told Radio Télévision Suisse: “You have territories in France such as Roubaix, such as northern Marseille, where police will not step foot, where the authority of state is completely absent, where mini Islamic states have been formed.”

French writer and political journalist Éric Zemmour recently told BFM TV: “There are places in France today, especially in the suburbs, where it is not really in France. Salafi Islamists are Islamizing some neighborhoods and some suburbs. In these neighborhoods, it’s not France, it’s an Islamic republic.” In a separate interview, Zemmour — whose latest book is entitled, “The French Suicide” — says multiculturalism and the reign of politically correct speech is destroying the country.

French politician Franck Guiot wrote that parts of Évry, a township in the southern suburbs of Paris, are no-go zones where police forces cannot go for fear of being attacked. He said that politicians seeking to maintain “social peace” were prohibiting the police from using their weapons to defend themselves.

The Socialist mayor of Amiens, Gilles Demailly, has referred to the Fafet-Brossolette district of the city as a “no-go zone” where “you can no longer order a pizza or get a doctor to come to the house.” Europe 1, one of the leading broadcasters in France, has referred to Marseille as a “no-go zone” after the government was forced to deploy riot police, known as CRS, to confront warring Muslim gangs in the city. The French Interior Ministry said it was trying to “reconquer” 184 square kilometers (71 square miles) of Marseille that have come under the control of Muslim gangs.

The French newspaper Le Figaro has referred to downtown Perpignan as a “veritable no-go zone” where “aggression, antisocial behavior, drug trafficking, Muslim communalism, racial tensions and tribal violence” are forcing non-Muslims to move out. Le Figaro also reported that the Les Izards district of Toulouse was a no-go zone, where Arab drug trafficking gangs rule the streets in a climate of fear.

Separately, Le Figaro reported that large quantities of assault rifles are circulating in French no-go zones. “For a few hundred dollars you can buy Kalashnikovs,” political scientist Sebastian Roché said. “The price of an iPhone!”

The newspaper France Soir published poll results showing that nearly 60% of French citizens are in favor of sending the army into troubled suburbs to restore order.

The newspaper Le Parisien has called parts of Grigny, a township in the southern suburbs of Paris, a “lawless zone” plagued by well-organized Muslim gangs, whose members believe they are “masters of the world.” The weekly newsmagazine Le Point reported on the spiraling Muslim lawlessness in the French city of Grenoble.

The French magazine L’Obs (formerly known as Le Nouvel Observateur) has reported on the deteriorating security situation in Roubaix, a city in northern France that is located close to the Belgian border. The magazine reported that local citizens are “exiled within their own country” and want to create their own militia to restore order because police are afraid to confront Muslim gangs.

In August 2014, the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles (Contemporary Values) reported that “France has more than 750 areas of lawlessness” where the law of the French Republic no longer applies. Under the headline “Hell in France,” the magazine said that many parts of France are experiencing a “dictatorship of riffraff” where police are “greeted by mortar fire” and are “forced to retreat by projectiles.”

Separately, Valeurs Actuelles reported on the lawlessness in Trappes, a township located in the western suburbs of Paris, where radical Islam and endemic crime go hand in hand. “Criminals are pursued by Islamic fundamentalists to impose an alternative society, breaking links with the French Republic,” according to local police commander Mohammed Duhan. It is not advisable to go there, he says, adding, “You will be spotted by so-called chauffeurs (lookouts for drug traffickers) and be stripped and smashed.”

Valeurs Actuelles has also reported on no-go zones in Nantes, Tours and Orléans, which have turned into “battlefields” where the few remaining native French holdouts are confronted with “Muslim communalism, the disappearance of their cultural references and rampant crime.”

A graphic 20-minute documentary (in French) about the no-go zone in Clichy Montfermeil, a suburb of Paris, can be viewed here. At around the 3-minute mark, the video shows what happens when French police enter the area.

A policeman uses a shotgun to try to keep an attacking gang at bay, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy Montfermeil. (Image source: Dailymotion video screenshot)

A 1.5 hour documentary (in French) produced by France’s TF1 about Muslim gangs in Parisian no-go zones can be viewed here. A 50-minute documentary (in French) produced by France’s TV3 about the no-go zones of Clos Saint-Lazare in northern Paris can be viewed here. A 45-minute documentary (in English) about the no-go zones of Marseilles can be viewed here.

A four-minute video of the most dangerous neighborhoods of France in 2014 can be viewed here. A three-and-a-half-minute video of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Greater Paris Metropolitan Area can be viewed here. A two-minute video of a no-go zone in Lille can be viewed here. A five-minute video about life in the suburbs of Lyon can be viewed here.

A Russian television (Russia-1) documentary about no-go zones in Paris can be viewed here. The presenter says: “We are in Paris, the Barbès quarter, a few minutes from the famous Montmartre. Finding a European here is almost a mission impossible. Certain Paris streets remind one of an oriental bazaar.” He continues: “The Paris banlieues have become criminal ghettoes where even the police dare not enter.” Hidden cameras record widespread lawlessness and drug dealing in the area.

A 120-page research paper entitled “No-Go Zones in the French Republic: Myth or Reality?”documented dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”

Some of the most notorious no-go zone areas in France are situated in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis, a northeastern suburb (banlieue) of Paris that has one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in France. The department is home to an estimated 600,000 Muslims (primarily from North and West Africa) out of a total population of 1.4 million.

Seine-Saint-Denis is divided into 40 administrative districts called communes (townships), 36 of which are on the French government’s official list of “sensitive urban zones” or ZUS.

Seine-Saint-Denis — also known locally as “ninety-three” or “nine three” after the first two digits of the postal code for this suburb — has one of the highest unemployment rates in France; more than 40% of those under the age of 25 are jobless. The area is plagued with drug dealing and suffers from some of the highest rates of violent crime in France.

In October 2011, a landmark 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la République” (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the French state, and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law. The report said that Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and instead are immersing themselves in radical Islam.

The report — which was commissioned by the influential French think tank, L’Institut Montaigne — was directed by Gilles Kepel, a highly respected political scientist and specialist in Islam, together with five other French researchers.

The authors of the report showed that France — which now has 6.5 million Muslims (the largest Muslim population in European Union) — is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers, who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

The research was primarily carried out in the Seine-Saint-Denis townships of Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, two suburbs that were ground zero for Muslim riots in the fall of 2005, when Muslim mobs torched more than 9,000 cars.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Also see:

Too afraid to face facts? UK and France deny existence of Muslim no-go zones

shariah_control-300x180AllenBWest.com, by Angela Graham-West on January 18, 2015

As USA Today reports, “On Monday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, will give a speech in London addressing what has been a disputed claim that Muslim immigrants have created “no-go zones” in Europe where non-Muslims are not welcome.”

This claim is being denied by the governments of England and France and declared to be ludicrous at best and amusing in the worst-case scenario. In fact, when hearing of a similar claim by terror analyst Steve Emerson on Fox News, British Prime Minister David Cameron responded: “When I heard this frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot.”

David Cameron may “choke on his porridge,” bacon, become disoriented about the time of year, or resort to name-calling, but I commend Governor Jindal for pressing on.

There is a problem and “porridge choking” won’t solve the problem that a disturbing number of European youth are becoming either radicalized or disenfranchised enough to consider fighting against their own country and their own way of life.

The prevailing method of ignoring the problem, or any problem that doesn’t conform to a specified manner of thinking, and shutting down dissent by name-calling has never and will never work.

France was not so vehement in their denial of the existence of these “no-go” zones. Rather they referred to the areas as 751 “sensitive urban zones” where you might find disadvantaged youths who appear to be unhappy with their position in society.

The French claim these areas have low home ownership rates, low income and low education levels. I’ve traveled extensively through Europe and many of my relatives and friends are residents of these types of areas in Germany, France and England.

USA Today says “former State Department official John Bolton’s Gatestone Foundation states “the “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.”

So what happens when immigrants refuse to assimilate into their host society and instead set up parallel societies that reflect their own culture, mores and values of their native countries? Well, you get the problem we’re witnessing in Europe.

Also see:

Immigration and Islam: Europe’s Crisis of Faith

The terrorist assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7 may have been organized by al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. But the attack, along with another at a Paris kosher market days later, was carried out by French Muslims descended from recent waves of North African and West African immigration. Well before the attacks, which left 17 dead, the French were discussing the possibility that tensions with the country’s own Muslim community were leading France toward some kind of armed confrontation.

Consider Éric Zemmour, a slashing television debater and a gifted polemicist. His history of the collapse of France’s postwar political order, “Le suicide français,” was No. 1 on the best-seller lists for several weeks this fall. “Today, our elites think it’s France that needs to change to suit Islam, and not the other way around,” Mr. Zemmour said on a late-night talk show in October, “and I think that with this system, we’re headed toward civil war.”

More recently, Michel Houellebecq published “Submission,” a novel set in the near future. In it, the re-election of France’s current president, François Hollande, has drawn recruits to a shadowy group proclaiming its European identity. “Sooner or later, civil war between Muslims and the rest of the population is inevitable,” a sympathizer explains. “They draw the conclusion that the sooner this war begins, the better chance they’ll have of winning it.” Published, as it happened, on the morning of the attacks, Mr. Houellebecq’s novel replaced Mr. Zemmour’s at the top of the best-seller list, where it remains.

Two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, there was a disturbing indication on Le Monde’s website of how French people were thinking. One item about the killing vastly outpaced all others in popularity. The reactions of Europe’s leaders was shared about 5,000 times, tales of Muslim schoolchildren with mixed feelings about 6,000, a detailed account of the Charlie Hebdo editorial meeting ended by the attack, 9,000. Topping them all, shared 28,000 times, was a story about reprisals: “Mosques become targets, French Muslims uneasy.” Those clicks are the sound of French fear that something larger may be under way.

Marine Le Pen of France’s Front National acknowledges supporters on Nov. 30. Populist parties are rising across Europe as voters feel abandoned by the mainstream political class. GETTY IMAGES

Marine Le Pen of France’s Front National acknowledges supporters on Nov. 30. Populist parties are rising across Europe as voters feel abandoned by the mainstream political class. GETTY IMAGES

France’s problem has elements of a military threat, a religious conflict and a violent civil-rights movement. It is not unique. Every country of Western Europe has a version. For a half-century, millions of immigrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa have arrived, lured by work, welfare, marriage and a refuge from war. There are about 20 million Muslims in Europe, with some 5 million of them in France, according to the demographer Michèle Tribalat. That amounts to roughly 8% of the population of France, compared with about 5% of both the U.K. and Germany.

Read more at WSJ

****

via Gates of Vienna:

The Surge of the Anti-Islamization Movement in Europe

Jerry Gordon sends this useful graph from The Wall Street Journal showing the latest poll results for various immigration-skeptical parties in Western Europe:

eunationalistsNotice that the WSJ, like the rest of the MSM, can’t restrain itself from editorializing that the parties “are using fear of terrorism and unease about Islam” — as if these weren’t urgent, important issues, but simply irrational fears of the lumpenproletariat to be exploited for electoral gain.

The graph captures an extraordinary moment in recent European history: Three anti-Islamization parties in three major countries poll at #1 among their respective voters. We can all celebrate this unprecedented situation.

But the static nature of the result misses some aspects of current political trends, such as the recent tremendous surge by UKIP in the run-up to the general election in May.

It will be interesting to see what this graph looks like in six months’ time.

E Pluribus Unum: Multiculturalism Caused the Paris Attacks – Afterburner w/Bill Whittle

Published on Jan 15, 2015 by PJ Media

It wasn’t the Mohammed cover art that caused the Charlie Hebdo attacks; it was the multicultural treatment of Muslims in France. Another scorcher of an Afterburner from Bill Whittle on PJTV.

Six terror cells STILL on the loose in France: Gun police on the streets to protect Jewish schools 24 hours a day

  • Prime Minister Manuel Valls put an extra 10,000 troops on Paris streets
  • Security services on both sides of the channel warn of more attacks
  • Fanatic who raided kosher shop had map of locations of Jewish schools

Up to six Islamic terrorist cells may still be at large and ready to strike in mainland France, police warned last night.

The alert came as French Prime Minister Manuel Valls placed an extra 10,000 troops on the streets of Paris and warned: ‘We are at war.’

He said there were ‘without doubt’ accomplices to last week’s killings in Paris, after security services on both sides of the Channel warned that further attacks are ‘highly likely’.

Gun guard: A young girl leaves a Jewish school in Paris's Marais district yesterday

Gun guard: A young girl leaves a Jewish school in Paris’s Marais district yesterday
Keeping watch: Authorities deployed thousands of troops to bolster security at sensitive sites across FranceKeeping watch: Authorities deployed thousands of troops to bolster security at sensitive sites across France

Likely target: French army soldiers patrol Rue des Rosiers street, in the heart of Paris's Jewish quarterLikely target: French army soldiers patrol Rue des Rosiers street, in the heart of Paris’s Jewish quarter

Police sources put the number of potential cells within France at ‘up to six’.

Officials said one suspect had been seen driving a Mini Cooper car registered to Hayat Boumeddiene, the partner of Amedy Coulibaly, who was killed by police on Friday after murdering a woman officer and four Jewish hostages.

Also see: